Upcoming League Format

ooh, hard choice. I was torn between 3 and 5, but i would love the excuse to paint 250 per week on my nids. 3 it is!

I'd like to see another escalation league but with the limiting the games to your best 2 results per week or even just your best result in a week, really like playing some of the smaller points games though, they're quick and playing 1500-2000 all the time gets old, I'm REALLY excited for the new scenarios too. Would like to see option 3 with limits though, as Paz said I want to paint up models as I go so escalation really gives me time to do that and a challenge to paint 250 every 2 weeks.

Is there a cap for escalation?

I agree with both Tom and Pascal. and i agree with the one or two games counting, which should be noted in the challenge post i think.

I must echo the previous sentiments. Escalation allows you to build the army as we go. I also like the idea of the best result counting for the week, or the best two results.

HolyCause wrote:Is there a cap for escalation?

I forgot to ask this question in the last post... do people get penalized/denied by not playing in lower point games?

Well, if you don't play a low points game, you just don't get points, and don't go up in standings. you have to play at the points level we are at. If you want to play higher, you just can't use that win/loss towards your league score.

Imma not cast a vote, but I am interested in what seems to be a concensus of an escalation league but where only 1-2 games per week count.

Also, could the scenarios NOT be the ones out of the 5th ed book (killpoints or objectives....) a little more variety is more fun in my opinion

That being said, you've never been restricted to using the rulebooks scenarios in any league games, you can play any scenario you want if your opponent is game. [/color][/quote]
awesome i will just buy the book then whenever i have a game, we can use one of those senorios

I don't want to sound like a "winning is what matters" guy, but I am curious how the escalation league (Which is far in the lead) would play out in terms of placement/tournament/etc... set points for winning like the 'old way', various points dependant on size of game?

I think the idea is 2 games that can possibly be recorded every week (or 2 weeks). There is still points for a win/loss/tie, you just keep your army size to the size per 2 weeks, so 500, 750, 1000 etc. We've done the "2 a week" before, and it helps, stops someone who has lost 60 times, beat out someone who has won 15 times, because of weight of games.

Paz wrote:Well, if you don't play a low points game, you just don't get points, and don't go up in standings. you have to play at the points level we are at. If you want to play higher, you just can't use that win/loss towards your league score.

I think that's a little unfair, as some armies tend to do better at lower points levels than others. Once it hits 1 500 things start to even out enough where it isn't that big of a deal, and again when it goes past 2 000 things get a bit wonky (but we're not going that high, so... ).

An averaging system would be nifty, if combined with the "2 a week" sorta thing. Where if one played 1 game under X points but then did 3 games under X+250 points, the third (or lowest) of the latter wouldn't be worth as much as it would be if it were done under X points. Say, half as much, since it wasn't played in the bracket it was intended to be.


Also, at the lower points values (<1 000), would a full 6x4 table be used?

Also, could the scenarios NOT be the ones out of the 5th ed book (killpoints or objectives....) a little more variety is more fun in my opinion

Kinda feeling this; the only standard mission in the 5th ed rulebook that's worthwhile is d3+2 objectives. However, I wasn't aware we could use any mission type in a league game, so that's pretty sweet. 5x5, here I come

I'm so pumped for the new scenario book it's not even funny. I like the idea of an averaging system or maybe a win loss average like number of wins divided by number of games with a minimum of ten games played to make playoffs so that you can't play 1 win and keep 100% record. As for the issue of unbalanced below 1500 I'm inclined to agree however I won 750 games with my necrons and they're a points heavy army. It's still merely an opinion however since if you ask in north America the balance point is 2000 but in Europe it's 1500 and they swear that 2000 is unbalanced. But changing it to win loss means if you don't play at low points it's not a big deal.

smackman wrote:I won 750 games with my necrons and they're a points heavy army.

Aye, been there, barely done that. I find it's either:

A) the Necrons scrape a victory through
B) the Necrons get rolled so hard some soothing cream is required after. lol

most necron games are like that, though. but they definitely get shafted hardcore at <1500 and >2000. However, I think we only have two necron players (smackman and I)?

I'll play in the league regardless, but I'd like to limit the games played and drop the minor victory stuff and go straight with the battle missions book because it's freaking awesome.

i've played flash games with thousand sons and got stomped, but once the points grow a bit those losses didnt really matter as i made playoffs still. low point games should be seen as a challenge for those expensive armies. don't complain every time something doesnt give you an easier time. take the challenges as they are and try your best. or if you cant stomach the loss before you even get to the table, then maybe you should play something that isnt 40k.

Also i like tom's idea and drop minor wins. victory or defeat are the only results in war.

HolyCause wrote:

smackman wrote:I won 750 games with my necrons and they're a points heavy army.

Aye, been there, barely done that. I find it's either:

A) the Necrons scrape a victory through
B) the Necrons get rolled so hard some soothing cream is required after. lol

most necron games are like that, though. but they definitely get shafted hardcore at <1500 and >2000. However, I think we only have two necron players (smackman and I)?

make that 3 haha im the third loser ha

40k in a flash for 500-750.. so those rules will be in effect for the first 4 weeks? (no 2+ saves, no model with 3 or more wounds, total armour value 13, etc)

Jemal wrote:40k in a flash for 500-750.. so those rules will be in effect for the first 4 weeks? (no 2+ saves, no model with 3 or more wounds, total armour value 13, etc)

**do you mean total AV 33 or less?

Also, isnt it only 1 troop and 0 HQ required also.. Since some armies like Chaos dont have HQ's under 3 wounds anymore

Canadin= correct and correct, that is how we played it last time. Means though that nids now can pretty much only use genestealers, as all synapse are now 3 wounds...